the effectiveness of the different IS is up for debate. They are both good, and the difference are so minimal between oly and panny that best is really a moot point.

But the point I was saying is that the oly lens are good for photography, and there are panny users grabbing some oly lenses for their system. 9-18 is just on lens for example. But for a shooter that wants close up, but do not want a short macro lens. The 40-150 is a good 1:1 macro, which is better then the macro of the 45-200. Both companies makes good lenses. And it is unfair to say one companies lens are a complete failure.

I can understand why the 9-18 has some interests in panny users because IS is not a concern for short FL.

This 40-150 is not a 1:1 macro, not even 1:2x, not even 1:4x.

If Oly does not care about video, its lenses are fine. But if it does, as the PEN commercial indicates, then its lenses are total failure. Note that I used two if...if...; if the first if were true, then you would have been right. I'm not saying it from the stand point of pure photographers, but from the stand point of oly's marketing logic.

It looks to do macro better then the 45-200, unless you used a conversion lens or crop on your samples.

Like I said canon, nikon, sony and olympus commercial all show their dslr's shoot video. And they do not do the best job. Shoot the sony A55 and A33 over heat with the ibis during video. DSLR and EVIL for video is just a add on, serious video should look at the nex camcorder or the new panny m4/3 camcorder.

Well, I played with DeShaker and got very good result. If light is enough so shutter speed can be high enough, DeShaker does a fantastic job. For indoors, any lens including this one can only do 70mm; longer than that, Deshaker is unable.

FWIW, EPL1's rolling shutter amount is 58% based on my measurement.

So, I might still buy this lens, love the weight, but not now, it's way too over priced at this time. For now, I'll try the panny 45-200, see if its OIS is worth the heavy weight.

I can understand why the 9-18 has some interests in panny users because IS is not a concern for short FL.

This 40-150 is not a 1:1 macro, not even 1:2x, not even 1:4x.

If Oly does not care about video, its lenses are fine. But if it does, as the PEN commercial indicates, then its lenses are total failure. Note that I used two if...if...; if the first if were true, then you would have been right. I'm not saying it from the stand point of pure photographers, but from the stand point of oly's marketing logic.

I was over in Arlington earlier this morning, went by Arlington Camera and got my hands on the micro 9-18 and 14-150 Zuikos for the first time. Wow, they are little gems. Build-quality is emmaculate. Further reinforced that's where my micro 4/3rd's outfit is going.

As far as movies go, the video you posted earlier showing how that Pen commercial was REALLY shot showed pretty well what you need to shoot a video like that. An E-P2, not an E-PL1, a $1,600 Olympus 7-14 f4, a $2,300 Olympus 14-35 f2, an $1,100 Olympus 50-200 f2.8-3.5 in addition to several other huge lenses I could not identify, heavy duty tripod, lot of lights, sound equipment and "a few" assistants!

I was over in Arlington earlier this morning, went by Arlington Camera and got my hands on the micro 9-18 and 14-150 Zuikos for the first time. Wow, they are little gems. Build-quality is emmaculate. Further reinforced that's where my micro 4/3rd's outfit is going.

greg.

the 9-18 is next on my outfit. everything i have seen from that lens shows its very sharp, and the build quality is good even with the collapsing design.

i really like what i have seen from the 14-150 as well, its really good when you remember its a superzoom, better than the aps-c superzooms i have seen, and the build quality on that is really nice.

but before the superzoom, i will get the 9-18 and then the panny 45-200.

I had a look at the rear glass and saw a white dent. When I was trying to clean it, I noticed that it was softly mounted. I.e., this rear glass can be pushed down and up and left and right.

Is this a new thing in lens technology?

I remember that Greg said his lens was not evenly focused, could this be the cause?

The rear element of the 4/3rd's 40-150 is spring loaded too. I don't know if it's a floating element related to spacing changes as you zoom or if it's part of the internal focus movement.....or neither,